Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.

The GPL (and other open source license) and EULAs rely on many of the same legal principles. Which, if you knew anything about contract law, you'd understand. Now, go do some actual research on how the Autodesk ruling and first sale rights with respect to software will effect redistribution licenses like the GPL.

The point continued to be contested, and obviously, continues to be contested. The fact that you wrote and published an article supporting your own point of view does not in any way constitute a proof of your position.

"The GPL (and other open source license) and EULAs rely on many of the same legal principles. Which, if you knew anything about contract law, you'd understand. Now, go do some actual research on how the Autodesk ruling and first sale rights with respect to software will effect redistribution licenses like the GPL.

Wow, you posted an article you wrote to prove your point. Now, lets look at the actual analysis on the article, we'll start with legal citations. Oh, wait, there aren't any. Let's look at a language analysis between the different types of contracts. Oh, no quotes from any of them. Well, there are some charts.

Thom, look, I know that you have an opinion on this. Unfortunately, you are utterly incapable of backing up your opinion in a way that would pass the smell test of even a first year legal student. Your article lives in a fantasy world that pretends that who you distribute your software to or whether it is providing additional rights or removing rights matters. It simply doesn't. The EULA and the GPL are contracts and need to be analyzed as contracts. If you'd like to actually do some real research and cite real laws and real court cases and real contract language and then compare how a SLA will be effected by the first sale doctrine versus something like the GPL, I'd be happy to read it. But if you're just going to repeat the asinine drivel you normally post, then it's a waste of everyone's time.

The differences between the GPL and an EULA are very important in this matter. Stating that both of them look like contracts does not make them the same from a legal standpoint.

The difference between an EULA and the GPL is that a GPL violation is automatically a *copyright* violation, whereas a violation of an EULA *could* be a copyright violation, but it could also be a mere *breach of contract*.

Breach of contract is not illegal. Copyright violation is illegal.

I can cite you every case in which the GPL has been tested in any court in any country in the world. Because the GPL *grants* rights you would not have under default copyright, violation of it means you are violating copyright. This core notion of the GPL has been upheld by courts all over the world, and it. Has. Never. Failed.

When it comes to cases in which the EULA has been involved, you'll see numerous cases going against the EULA, numerous cases going for the EULA; in general, it's all very muddy and nobody really knows what it all means.

On top of that comes the fact that the manner in which you agree to an EULA is very questionable, whereas agreement with the GPL is an unimportant point; mere users do not need to agree to the GPL (as it does not restrict usage in any way), and developers/distributors can not disregard it because that would mean they would violate copyright.

This is not an analysis, this is pure and simple fact, proven time and time again in all those GPL court cases.